Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 17, 2012, 9:56 a.m. EST by asauti
(-113)
from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are four candidates still in the running to unseat the current president in the 2012 election. However, when watching television news, reading newspapers and/or examining the websites of the mainstream media, one would likely believe there are only three: Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.

The mainstream media is giving Nearly Zero attention to Ron Paul.

Why is that? Why, for example, is it not Gingrich that is garnering such a minute amount of attention? After all, he is the "most behind" in the cumulative results of the states who have been polled. Yet, his name and photo continue to appear in many mainstream articles about the election.

Strange.

When viewing independent journalist websites and user-generated media, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, one finds that Ron Paul is quite popular among "The People". His campaign contributions are made up by small donations from individuals across the country - not corporations. And with all of these small donations, he has been able to raise a lot of capital, allowing him to stay in the race far longer than other competitors.

But the mainstream media is turning a "blind eye" to his "Message of Freedom". Very strange, indeed.

He speaks the real truth but Americans will continue to justify their fear and stupidity. "The quest for Empire eventually destroys ALL great nations". History presents the same story...same outcome every time. Our military is a continual source of diminishing influence. We can't afford it and we refuse to pay it back. Just a matter of time. Sit back and enjoy the show!

Facts are stubborn as they say. Take a look at this poster. It presents some very harsh realities about where our priorities lie. Perhaps when or if you ever get drafted, you would feel differently. I'm not saying we should not protect ourselves but when does this protection begin to harm our whole existence and economic system. We are there. Like it or not.

Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomasor President Cotton Mather Santorum and more christian dictatorship

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron PaulSIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS.
The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
or
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
or
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
or
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
or
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
or
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
or
a nuclear bomb free Iran
[ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
or
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]

Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing forcriminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul, he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.

Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure

.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”

Are you worried that his cuts are a little too similar to the "austerity" measures in Greece that have caused riots?

I like Ron Paul's views on the wars and the fed and the bill of rights, but that's about it. I do like him more than Obamam but only because of Obama's continuation of the Bush war legacy and the fact that Obama has no problem giving money to the Fed and banksters.. And the GOP is fool's errand. I don't consider Ron a republican.

Have you ever read HR 2990 by Dennis Kucinich? It would "end the fed" but also creates jobs through strengthening infrastructure, education, and healthcare, all without raising debt, without causing inflation, and also creating the ability to lower taxes.

But why make such cuts if we could have a different solution, like in HR 2990? Ron and Dennis share the same view on the fed, except Kucinich wants to skip the step of the audit and just go to step 2 and transfer control back to constitutional authority. HR 2990 is the way to strengthen and expand infrastructure, have better education, and healthcare for all, WITHOUT continuing inflation, and it would actually lower income taxes since such revenue won't be needed as much, all the while funneling money into the economy. It's possible. I highly suggest you read the bill HR 2990. Dennis and Ron are good friends too.

The "what" is irrelevant because each person is going to have individual desires. One might also say that the "choose what" could be anything that the imagination conjures, and as such, the "what" does not conflict with the overall message of the statement.

Therefore, the point I am seeking as a "basis for agreement on" is simply that everyone "wants the ability to choose". Or, another way to state it: "everyone wants freedom".

If you do believe the statement of "everyone wants freedom" to be false, please explain why.

Do you think you could find me someone that will declare with truth, the following: "I do not want freedom".

Fair enough.... fair enough. Someone here claimed that I was an old fogey because of something I said, and I told them something along the lines of what you just told me. I guess hypocrisy is not as uncommon as we might think....

First of all, I find it interesting that you are turning off the "Reply" button. You exercise a power that the others participating on this forum do not have. The irony of this runs thick, and if nothing else reveals a clear hypocrisy of ideals.

I also find it very interesting that you choose the route of "throwing insults" by changing the name of my "handle". It is becoming clear to me that you are not one to embrace "Love and Understanding". Therefore, resorting to insults "suites you well".

For the many insults you want to throw, be my guest. I look forward to reading the additional, creative ways you might "attempt to get to me" as an individual and fellow American.

But, I have no control over the reply button. You can only reply so many times and then you can't. :/
It's the same for everyone.

The extra s was an unintentional typo. For that I apologize. I am not a subtle insulter-type. I just insult and be done with it. I try not to beat around the bush.

I think you are a wee bit paranoid there.If I am unwilling to engage in Ran Paul-libertarian-Ayn-Rand stuff, you can bet your patootie that I sure as hell have no intention of investing in any "creative ways" to attempt to get to you. Thanks, though.

assauti: I am one of those people that knows that Obama has a legitimate U.S. birth certificate and, no, I do not believe that the U.S. government orchestrated the attack of 9/11. In fact, I find the 9/11 was an inside job actually obscures other fundamental questions and/or issues.

There is an old joke. A wife walks into her bedroom and catches her husband in bed with another woman. He jumps up and says something like, "I am not sleeping with this woman. Now, are you going to believe what you see or what I am telling you?"

You guys never quit. For Pete's sake, we have done this for months on end. If you were an attorney, you would have at least have had an undergraduate course in political science and you should have encountered libertarians but if you did not then you would have at least run into their economic stance in one of your undergrad economic courses.

I call bullshit.
Now, if you want to discuss why Ron Paul is not getting media attention then I'm in. I am just going to let you know straight up that I don't buy into that shit. :D

I would like virtually any politician that has been as true to principle as he has for 30 years, no matter what political stripe they are from. I am sick of baloney, and I think the rest of the country is as well.

I don't understand how you Ron Paul supporters keep saying this? Do you actually believe this? If a politician takes money from an Oil company he is considered a shill for the oil companies. If a politician takes money from Wall Street he is considered a shill for Wall Street. Yet, Ron Paul is given a free pass by all you people as he takes lots of money from White Supremist groups. I'll believe you if he returns every cent he took and makes an official statement of condemnation for those groups he had willingly taken money from during his whole politicial life including his current run for the presidency

It is a different animal. I mean, how much money do these groups donate to Paul? What's the nature of the donations (is it merely some skin head ass holes sending in $20, or is it a well known group donating millions to his campaign)?

the difference is in the amounts. Mitt Romneys TOP contributor are employees of goldman sachs with over 400,000 dollars. Ron Paul got almost nothing (in terms of an election) from white supremecists. His top donors are members of the army, navy, and airforce. That's why we call him the choice of the troops.

No...not really. If a politician does the bidding of oil companies, he is considered a shill for oil companies. Yes, I would have respect for anyone who tells it from the heart. I might not vote for them, just as I might not vote for Paul, but I would respect them. I don't see any one else in modern politics telling it from the heart.

It isn't that I don't like him personally, but what he is pushing economically would be damning for most people. Unregulated capitalism, which is the economic system a true libertarian would call for would be deleterious for most people. Think back to the conditions of the Industrial Revolution. That is what would happen again and that is why we have regulations in the first place. The true economics of libertarianism gets lost in all the sexy anti-war talk and "liberty" talk. Be careful.

You see the misunderstanding is that free markets mean no regulations, and no government. Libertarians believe in freedom as long as you are not harming someone. They believe in limiting the power of government. For example you cannot just dump toxins into a river because that does do harm. You cannot shine a 10,000 watt light on your neighbors house because it interferes with her rights.

When we talk about free markets we mean that the government should not be subsidizing one company over another. That is favoritism and is damages the system. Politicians should no be picking winners and losers.

When we talk about over regulation we are talking about things like Sarbanes-Oxley and Frank -Dodd which add costs to companies and prohibit smaller companies from competing with larger companies. The largest growing career is "Compliance Officer" which is a person who makes sure you are complying with these cumbersome regulations.

I understand what you are saying and you make a lot of good points. The problem is that that is not necessarily what libertarianism is all about. It really, at it's heart, is about no regulation. I don't like crony capitalism either, but an entirely free market capitalism will end up as a plutocracy not too different than the way it is now and probably much worse with an even bigger divide in income distribution. What we need is for the economic system to be regulated in a way that works for everyone.

Okay. Think about things like social security and medicare, the earned income tax credit, a progressive tax structure, the minimum wage. Think about the New Deal, things like that. They all serve to minimize the disparity in income distribution.

Capitalism wouldn't be unregulated. It would be up to the people to enforce with their dollars. Every business sells a product. No business makes money unless people buy their product. If people don't approve of a businesses actions then they simply don't buy their products.

yes you do. You either buy it or you don't. No one can make you buy something. For example APPLE. If you don't like the business practices of apple, don't buy ipods, ipads, iphones, macs, macbooks, or whatever else they make. You also have to convince others of your viewpoint. If others agree with you, they will stop buying the products. However, not everyone will care as much as you do. But if enough other people care and make it known to the company why they aren't buying, the company will either change or make their product good enough that you won't care.

I'm talking about those in poverty. And, with one-half of Americans earning less than $26,000 per year we have many on the verge of poverty. It is said that one-half of Americans are economically fragile. In that position, people don't have a lot of choice. They shop where they can afford to shop.

Everyone loves to hear about "liberty." It's very appealing. With Ron Paul you'd be free to drink unpasteurized milk, carry your gun, visit your prostitute, do your drugs, beat your children, etc. etc. No tethers on your freedom. And, that appeals to many people. But, think long and hard about what an unregulated capitalist economy would mean to most people. It would not be good. And, these are the details they do not go into.

Obviously those aspects of libertarian ideology are disturbing, but of course if Paul were President, his only "real" power would be as commander and chief (for everything else, he would require the approval of congress). In other words, he could withdraw our forces from anywhere he wanted to (unilaterally, without congressional support), and even pardon nonviolent offenders in federal prison, but he wouldn't be able to cut a dime from social spending, without approval by a majority of congress. It's true that he wouldn't be inclined to support additional regulation, but I think Paul could be pushed to sign something like a new Glass Steagall into law, if there was enough public pressure (I mean, as it is, no other Presidential candidate supports it, so I'm not sure how Paul is any different here)?

That's all true and fine. But, it is the direction that he would like to take this country in that bothers me. If people are going to stand beside a libertarian then they should understand what he really believes and not just the sexy stuff. The nitty gritty of what type of economy he'd really like to have. Private roads, private schools, no medicare, no social security, no regulations for the environment, you name it. And, they need to understand what an unregulated capitalist system would mean for them personally. If you don't already hold a good deal of capital it would be pretty bad for you. These are the things he ultimately wants, whether or not he could ever attain them in his lifetime. These are the things he stands for and they have consequences.

I've heard him express doubts regarding privatizing roads and public infrastructure in general. I think he said something along the lines of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits (and suggested he isn't automatically inclined to support privatization). Nevertheless, I have a number of problems with Ron Paul, but there's certain aspects of his ideas that make him an attractive candidate. Will I vote for him? Probably not ...

Exactly. Many of my fellow left wingers don't seem to realize that the only things Paul is likely to change are the executive orders-most of the things they agree with him on. As you said, he is not likely to do anything else because congress won't agree. And he's not "taking the country" in any direction, because there is no such thing as a dangerous idea.

Who says it would be totally unregulated?
One of the things about making assumptions about political rhetoric is that they may talk big but when reality intrudes once they are in office. A lot of the things they say can't be done. Or in Obama's case they flat out lie every time they open their mouth.
If Paul got in office he would have to moderate his views fast.
It reminds me of the Lefts victory in Germany in the 90's. They were suddenly faced with actually having to govern. They moderated their actions fast.

Really good points. I have always called Paul a hypocrite because how can you be a libertarian and a Congressman at the same time? And, you're right they all talk rhetoric. But, beware, rhetoric is powerful.

I just think we need to be very careful about what direction this country is going to go in economically. I do not think libertarianism has much to offer that is healthy for the economy other than spending issues, ending the wars, etc. which is all fine.

No. That is what libertarianism stands for in some people's minds. Being free to do whatever you want. Some libertarian on this forum posted about what a great dad that guy in Portland was for blowing up his house with himself and his two kids in it because it was unfair that he had to have supervised visits. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

Who was this leader of the modern Libertarian movement you are speaking of? What? Oh, that's right, it is a anonymous stranger on an internet message board, who no more represents libertarianism than someone trolling this site represents liberalism. Yes, people troll forums and make libertarians look stupid, just as people troll this site and make us look stupid. You don't mean you picked this quote out because it fulfills your predetermined conclusion that libertarians are nuts, do you?

Besides, You said that Ron Paul supported legalizing child abuse, not "some libertarians". Cite up or forever suffer the consequenses of being a liar.

I'm sorry if you don't understand hyperbole. A libertarian posted a thread in defense of Josh Powell saying that he was a hero for standing up to the government who required him to have supervised visits and how unfair that was. So, better to kill your kids? And, many responded in the affirmative. There is a belief in libertarianism that people should be free to raise their kids however they want without any governmental restrictions.

I'm sorry you have no grip on factual evidence or reality. The statement you made is absurd, and you know it. I could say something equally ridiculous about Obama, if you like. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of a moral parallel. Oh well, I will try anyway, if for nothing else, for the sake of anyone else reading this who is able to think objectively and reasonably.

"Dianne Feinstein said once she wanted to confiscate all of the privately owned firearms in the country. Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat, and Barack Obama is a Democrat. Barack Obama will confiscate all of the privately owned firearms in the country." That's not hyperbole, that's just lying.

Sigh. Yet another person who cannot get correlation and causation straight. I will not reply further to your babblings.

LOL! I'm sorry I hit such a nerve with you, I truly am. Okay. I'll say it. Ron Paul does not support child abuse. Okay. You happy? But, some libertarian supporters seem to think murdering your children is okay and that's a fact.

What do you mean, "Ron Paul does not support child abuse"? It's obvious. He's one of them, of course he supports it. I heard he also engages in ritual blood sacrifices at area 51 during the solstice. He IS one of them, after all, what makes you think he wouldn't support child abuse? The CATO institute said it was okay.

Thanks for the link. I've heard Ron Paul speak many times and I'm very familiar with libertarian positions and Austrian economics. It's not the messenger. It's the message. All of the social issues have great appeal to people but the economics of an unregulated free-wheeling capitalist system would set us back. Think of the Industrial Revolution. That is the closest we've ever been to unregulated capitalism. It would not be pretty. It would be Dickensian. The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

Nader gave us the Iraq war – deregulation – halliburton - alito - roberts etc etc etc etc
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party candidate!President Bain Romney ! ……… and more scalia clones like thomasor President Cotton Mather Santorum and more christian dictatorship

You gotta believe –
………….the only ones who don’t want you to vote Democratic-
…………………………………………………………………….are the tea potty !

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron PaulSIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS.
The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!" Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

You can claim – b.b.b.b.b.but Ron did not write these awful things! HE PRINTED THEM!

And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, you or your estate can sue ],
or
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
or
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
or
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ ? ],
or
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
or
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always pick honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
or
a nuclear bomb free Iran
[ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
or
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]

Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing forcriminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul,
he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.

Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure

.................................................................
just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”

Yes. I always say, ask your libertarian leaders if they'd be willing to even out the net worth of every American before putting this unregulated economy in place. The answer would be a resounding "No." Why? Because they know damn well the advantage their monied selves would have under such a system.

First of all, I would take this deal if the deregulation would be guaranteed to last my whole life or longer. Secondly, isn't that proposition like saying, "sure, we can have socialism, if you give all of the money in the world to the rich first"? It's nonsense.

Very true - you speak of the undeniable. Just as a lion eats the antelope, it is the "way of the world".

However, are we as a society going to let everyone make an attempt to "be a tiger" by giving them an "equal rule of law"? Because that "equal rule of law" is what Ron Paul is about: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Our modern-day Constitution does contain some undesirable legislation, but in general, it is a document that I hope you cherish. For if you forget about it, so too will the people who want to rule you.

We currently do have a "regulated capitalist economy" in the United States - there are plenty of good laws "on the books". These laws are a result of cases that have been previously decided in court.

However, there is at least one item of legislation that I am not in favor of: Current federal laws of "Legal Tender".

I am an attorney in the Seattle, Washington area and I am very pleased to see that our state (as well as Utah) are seeking to write their own "legal tender" laws. The goal is to give freedom to people in creating contracts that do not involve a forced adherence to the U.S. dollar as a medium of legal exchange.

We need to be clear about what we are discussing. Libertarian economics would be an unregulated capitalist system. That's what it is. Using a different medium of legal exchange could be done with regulation, yes, but that's not libertarianism, though you could view it as a step toward it, I suppose.

1) I want the people of this nation to be able to choose whether or not they use the U.S. dollar as a medium of exchange. It is well and fine that the dollar exists, but it should not be a forced adherence.

Okay. I've seen that video and I understand money as debt and all of that. It is fractional reserve banking. However, even though that is a big problem, having an unregulated capitalist system would never be the answer because at the foundation of that is exploitation of labor and capital which means that those with capital, the rich, will get richer while the poor get poorer. We would end up with an even bigger divide in income distribution than we have right now.

Now, fractional reserve banking should be dealt with within the current system. It is a huge problem. I agree. And, most people have no idea that this is going on.

You write: "having an unregulated capitalist system would never be the answer because at the foundation of that is exploitation of labor and capital which means that those with capital, the rich, will get richer while the poor get poorer."

Can you name a specific period of time in human history where a group of people, a state or a nation, have participated in a fully "unregulated capitalist system"?

Get out of here, troll. You and your compatriots have done nothing since the inception of this movement, to drive us away from our central message, including state's rights of protection from corporations.

Yes you are right, the actions of the Bush administration represent all Republicans in office at the federal, state, and local level. Just like the actions of one black man represent the actions of all.

I have no doubt that you are supportive of Occupy, but the rhetoric above only serves to turn people away from the movement and make it easy to label this movement as nothing more than a far left extension of the Democratic party, which is what a lot of those on the outside already think. And I can't see how that is good for a group that claims to be about the 99%.

No, off the top of my head I can't think of one good thing Bush did. He was a bad president. But how you use that and hold it against the entire Republican party? It is really pretty naive and narrow minded and it seems like your thinking is clouded by anger and hate.

The American elections perpetually televised by our Kleptocracy-controlled media are a smokescreen of false choices distracting attention from even more false choices. At the presidential level and likely others, our election results are predetermined: If not by the billions poured into brainwashing voters through the media, then by rigging the voting machines and if necessary having a tainted judiciary overrule recounts:

This Orwellian subterfuge distracts the attention of the Sheeple from other false choices that have far more impact than which corporate puppet gets to sit in the Oval Office for four years. Those choices currently include: the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) - a loss of real freedoms in return for protection from fabricated threats; the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) - Internet censorship disguised as intellectual property protection; and the Keystone XL Pipeline Project - which will give us dirty energy and ditch-digging jobs at an ecological cost that may include the main water supply for the American Heartland - approval for which was accelerated by a clause buried in the recent Payroll Tax Cut legislation that received bipartisan praise. This deceptive spin and doublespeak has been going on for years, and will continue at an ever-accelerating pace now that Corporate Fascist Puppet President Barack Hussein Obama signed away ou!
r Bill of Rights on New Year's Eve, while we were watching balls drop and he was in Hawaii, about as far away as he could be from the uprising of an angry citizenry that never materialized...

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT OF THE LAST 14 U.S. PRESIDENTS, 7 HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AND 7 HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.

Mainstream media focuses on America's two-year election cycles as if who wins or loses in the swinging of the pendulum was a matter of life or death, when in fact even at the Presidential level it makes no more difference than the outcomes of Monday Night Football, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Hillbilly Handfishing, the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, or the latest Kardashian crisis. Our elections are staged to give Sheeple the illusion of control so they will (a) vent their frustrations and expend their energy, emotions and resources supporting or attacking the Puppet on the Left hand or the Puppet on the Right, and consequently (b) never recognize and challenge the common omnipotent Puppetmaster. As long as corporations own the politicians, it's futile to believe we can "CHANGE" things with our votes.

Ron Paul is an interesting character. He seems to say all the right things, but he flashes the Illuminati hand signs. Could just be a coincidence, but why do it? It's not like there's a real reason to be flashing heavy metal devil horns after/before/during a speech...

Oh, right. The illuminati hand sign... is it a coincidence that that sign is also the american sign language sign for "I love you"? Seriously, stop trolling this site and making us look like a bunch of conspiracy theorist wackos.

Lol, I'm not the kind of person who generally goes for conspiracy theories, but seeing how bad ALL of the candidates, on all sides, for this year's elections are, I can't help but theorize that none of them are really running to get elected, that they're only trying to keep people from paying attention to important issues so that when one of them (any one of them) does get elected, whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes has control. And there's no doubt that there are people behind the scenes. If I were to vote for any of them it would be Ron Paul, simply because what he says resonates with what I believe (disclaimer, I have not done a great deal of research on Ron Paul, but I do disregard claims that he wrote racist essays for a newsletter in his name). If he were elected, it would be difficult for him to successfully dodge accusations that he is not following through on his campaign promises, since the crowd he appeals to is one that is willing to do its research and call him out when he fails to uphold his promises, unlike the Obama supporters (I'll admit it, I was one. But I had just turned 18 and didn't know shit about the world), who were only looking forward to "change". Well, they got it didn't they?